Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.

PROPOSAL

Change of use from betting shop (Use Class Sui Generis) to amusement centre (adult gaming centre) (Use Class Sui Generis).

RECOMMENDATION

1.          That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

2.          That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the committee.

Sarah Dilley (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report, detailing the proposal for a change of use from betting shop (Use Class Sui Generis) to amusement centre (adult gaming centre) with the Committee advised that the existing site was previously in use as a double fronted betting shop and no external alterations were proposed.  In recommending the application for approval members were advised the proposal had been assessed to comply with Policy BE5 of the Brent Local Plan based on the weight given to the planning application and appeal history on site.

As there were no clarifying questions from members, the Vice-Chair proceeded to invite local Councillor Chan (who had registered to speak as a local ward councillor in objection to the application) to address the Committee.

The following key points were highlighted:

·             In highlighting concerns and objections raised in relation to the previous application for the same site, the opportunity was taken to remind members of what was felt to be the significant harm created by gambling and the overconcentration of adult gaming centres and other gambling premises in the vicinity of the site.  This was deemed to be profoundly detrimental not only to local residents and businesses but also to vulnerable individuals residing in the area, who would likely frequent the proposed establishment if permission were granted with the concerns highlighted based on both qualitative and quantitative grounds.

·             Given that Harlesden had already been recognised as one of the main gambling centres across London reference was also made to the concentration of existing gambling facilities situated within a 500-meter radius of the application site and its proximity to a homeless support facility providing assistance to a large number of vulnerable individuals with similar objections also raised concerning the previous application by local residents, businesses, and the police.

·             In noting that the Planning Inspector had not supported the Local Authority view in considering the appeal and overturning refusal of planning permission on the previous application in relation to the impact on crime, antisocial behaviour and disorder it was felt these remained valid concerns with the proposal likely increase antisocial behaviour, crime, disorder, littering, noise and nuisance as well as impacting on the vitality of business in the surrounding area.

·             In view of the concerns outlined along with the wider social impact relating to the unsuitability of the location, the Committee was once again urged to reject the planning application or, if not felt possible to defend that position (recognising that the previous appeal decision would form a material planning consideration) to impose stringent restrictions on any approved application.

The Vice-Chair thanked Councillor Chan for addressing the Committee and invited members to ask any questions they had in relation to the information presented, with the following being noted:

·             In noting the previous planning history relating to the site and outcome of the most recent appeal decision by the Planning Inspector which had upheld an appeal seeking to overturn refusal of the previous planning application involving the sub division of the property as a betting office and Adult Gaming Centre, further details were sought on the what the objectors felt should form the main basis of any reasons for refusal.  In seeking further clarification the Committee were mindful that the basis of appeal decision in relation to overconcentration of use, location, noise and nuisance, crime disorder and anti-socal behaviour and also national and local planning policies, including BE5 of the Local Plan would need to be taken into account when considering the current application.  In response, Councillor Chan felt that in practice there was little distinction between different types of use involving an adult gaming centre, betting shop, or a gambling centre as the functional impacts were all the same.  Whilst urging the Committee to consider refusing the application on the basis of the concerns raised the need to consider the relevant planning considerations was also recognised and if that was therefore felt to be unfeasible (based on the material planning considerations identified) he advised his preference would be for the Committee to at least consider imposing stringent restrictions on operation of the premises to safeguard the most vulnerable residents in Harlesden.

In considering the extent of any restrictions that it might be possible to impose the Committee received further legal advice on the criteria that would also need to be taken into account, if seeking to apply additional conditions, which included the need to ensure they were necessary, relevant to planning considerations, pertinent to the development, enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other requests.  Members were also reminded of the need to consider the distinction between planning and licensing functions, which were governed by separate procedural and policy frameworks.  In terms of the operation of gambling premises, it was highlighted that the Gambling Commission was responsible for setting out the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP) applicable to operators of Adult Gaming Centres with monitoring and enforcement conducted by local authority licensing officers and the Gambling Commission’s licensing officers.  It would therefore be this regulatory, licensing, and enforcement framework under which any restrictions on operation of the premises would need to be imposed as they were responsible for facilitating safe gambling as a leisure activity while protecting children and vulnerable individuals and ensuring no association with anti-social behaviour and criminal activity.

As no further issues were raised, Councillor Chan was thanked for responding to the Committee’s queries and the Vice-Chair then moved on to offer the Committee the opportunity to ask officers any remaining questions or points of clarity in relation to the application.

The following key points were highlighted:

·             As an initial query, members sought clarity on the extent to which the opening times of the proposed adult gaming centre could be limited, particularly given the proximity of the site to a homeless support service and local schools. In response, members were advised that the development had been assessed based on its proximity to residential sensitive receptors with regard to the proposed operating hours, use and previous appeal decision and planning history.  On this basis. a condition had therefore been proposed to restrict operational hours between 8am and 10pm which had been more restrictive than previously applied and was considered reasonable for the proposed use and size of the premises along with the submission and approval of a sound insulation condition.

In response to further questioning, members were advised that separate hours could be established under the Licensing regime based on specific considerations. The Licensing regime evaluated the nature of use and the impact associated with the proposed hours although compliance with both Planning and Licensing regulations would still be required.

·             In response to a further query, Members were advised that should they be minded to refuse planning permission the applicant, as they had done previously, would have the right to appeal the basis of that decision meaning clear and valid reasons for any refusal would need to be provided.  Should any appeal succeed, members were reminded there would also be a risk of costs being awarded against the Council.

·             As a separate issue, further details were sought on the potential restrictions it would be possible for the Committee to consider applying in relation to the operation and the premises and type of use proposed.  In response, members were advised that in terms of operational use these would be matters that fell within the remit of the Licensing and Gambling regime with the planning application including a condition for an unobstructed storefront, considering the vitality and viability of the town centre and restrictions on the hours of use for the premises.  The advantages of the licensing regime in being able to monitor and regulate operational use were also outlined given the dynamic nature of the licensing enforcement and review mechanisms in place which were designed to be more flexible and responsive to the operation of the premises under the licensing requirements.

As there were no further questions from Members, the Vice-Chair then moved on to the vote.  Whilst recognising the concerns raised, members were reminded of the need to ensure any decision made was taken on the basis of the relevant planning considerations and reflected consideration (as material planning considerations) of the previous appeal decision.

DECISION

On this basis it was RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.

(Voting on the above decision was as follows: For 6 and Against 1).